for
the Court. Abdoulie Njie's application for postconviction
relief, premised on ineffective assistance of counsel, was
denied in the Superior Court, and he appealed to this Court,
contending that the hearing justice's decision was in
error. This case came before the Supreme Court on February
10, 2017, pursuant to an order directing the parties to
appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal
should not summarily be decided. After carefully considering
the record and the parties' written and oral submissions,
we conclude that cause has not been shown and proceed to
decide the appeal without further briefing or argument. For
the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment
of the Superior Court.

I
Facts and Travel

On
September 2, 2011, a grand jury indicted applicant, Abdoulie
Njie, on four counts: two counts of first-degree sexual
assault (counts 1 and 2), in violation of G.L. 1956
§§ 11-37-2 and 11-37-3, one count of second-degree
sexual assault (count 3), in violation of §§
11-37-4 and 11-37-5, and one count of intimidation of a
witness in a criminal proceeding (count 4), in violation of
G.L. 1956 § 11-32-5(a). On December 4, 2012, after
numerous pretrial conferences, Njie pled nolo contendere to
counts 3 and 4 of the indictment. In exchange for his plea,
the state dismissed counts 1 and 2 in accordance with Rule
48(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. On
count 3, Njie was sentenced to fifteen years at the Adult
Correctional Institutions (ACI), twelve years to serve, the
balance to be suspended, with probation. On count 4, he was
sentenced to five years at the ACI, suspended, with five
years' probation to run consecutive to count 3.

A week
after Njie's plea was entered, the state filed a motion
under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal
Procedure to correct the sentence imposed on count 4 because
it was illegal. The state submitted that it had
"mistakenly advised the [c]ourt and defense counsel that
count four (4) of the indictment was a Felony Witness
Intimidation charge under [§] 11-32-5 punishable by up
to 5 years in prison." After further review, the state
determined that count 4 was actually "a misdemeanor
offense of Witness Intimidation under [§] 11-32-5(a)
punishable by up to one (1) year in prison." The state
requested the court "to correct the sentence imposed in
count four (4) to one (1) year at the Adult Correctional
Institution[s] (ACI) suspended with [one] (1) year probation
consecutive to the sentence imposed in [c]ount three
(3)." At a hearing on the same day, with applicant
present, the state's motion was granted and the original
plea form was modified to incorporate this change. A judgment
of conviction and commitment was later entered to reflect the
modified sentence.

On
January 3, 2014, Njie filed an application for postconviction
relief. In that application, he alleged that his sentence and
conviction were in violation of the United States
Constitution and the Rhode Island Constitution due to the
ineffective assistance of counsel. During a hearing on
December 9, 2014, Njie's attorney articulated that
Njie's request for postconviction relief "should be
more interpreted as that [N]ie] did not make a knowing and
intelligent plea at the time of his plea." Specifically,
his attorney argued that Njie "did not know the
consequences" at the time of his plea because
"[c]learly he did not know the proper charges." The
state contended that no evidence was "presented to [the]
[c]ourt that [N]ie] would never have pled if he knew [c]ount
4 was a maximum of one" year instead of five years.
Further, the state maintained that, when the motion to
correct the sentence was granted, Njie "had no objection
through his attorney" and that "there was
absolutely no indication from [him] on that day at all that
he was now confused as to what was going on."

The
hearing justice, who was the same justice who accepted
Njie's plea, determined that "[t]he [c]ourt engaged
in a pretty detailed colloquy with [d]efendant before
determining that his decision to change his plea was knowing,
intelligent and voluntary." The hearing justice
indicated that "exactly one week after [N]ie's] plea
the sentence was modified so that it was still 15 years, 12
to serve on [c]ount [3]." Further, the hearing justice
acknowledged Njie's attorney's argument that it
indeed was "quite different to plead to a felony rather
than a misdemeanor"; however, he noted that in this case
Njie "was willing to plead to a very serious element,
that of second degree sexual assault. So whether or not he
had pled to a misdemeanor in [c]ount 4, it still would have
been a felon[y]." The hearing justice concluded that
Njie "failed to demonstrate that his decision to plead
guilty to [c]ount 3 was not a knowing, intelligent and
voluntary one in exchange for the dismissal of [c]ounts 1 and
2, in exchange for a 12-year term to serve."
Furthermore, the hearing justice established that Njie
"ratified the change" on the plea form by
initialing it, adding that "[i]t was a change to
[N]ie's] benefit and not to his detriment." The
hearing justice found that "nothing that occurred on the
11th day of December, 2011 modified, interfered or diminished
his waiver of his Constitutional rights." After the
hearing justice denied his application for postconviction
relief, Njie timely appealed to this Court.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When
reviewing an appeal arising from the denial of an application
for postconviction relief, "[t]his Court will not
impinge upon the fact-finding function of a hearing justice
&#39;absent clear error or a showing that the [hearing]
justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence in
arriving at those findings.&#39;" Anderson, 45
A.3d at 601 (quoting Chapdelaine v. State, 32 A.3d
937, 941 (R.I. 2011)). "However, when a decision
regarding postconviction relief &#39;involv[es] questions of
fact or mixed questions of law and fact pertaining to an
alleged violation of an applicant&#39;s constitutional
rights, &#39; this Court&#39;s standard of review is de
novo." Id. (quoting State v.
Laurence, 18 A.3d 512, 521 (R.I. 2011)). Nevertheless,
"[e]ven when the de novo standard is applied to
issues of constitutional dimension, we still ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.